Wayne Grudem Supports Mitt Romney for President

People don’t usually turn to Wayne Grudem for advice about politics. He’s an evangelical theologian and scholar who has written what is perhaps the most widely used textbook on Systematic Theology among evangelicals. If you’ve got a question about any point of doctrine, Grudem is your go-to guy.

Nevertheless, Grudem has just written a compelling article in support of Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president. It’s posted at Townhall.com, and it’s titled “Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney.” His bottom line is this:

‘The situation as it looks today: Apart from Romney, I don’t think there is any other solidly conservative candidate who can beat Giuliani in the primaries. As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative. Among the “second-tier” candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isn’t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly “take off.” There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.

‘So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.’

I haven’t decided who I am going to support yet. But I definitely agree with Grudem about several things. A Rudy Giuliani candidacy would be a disaster for the pro-life movement. I think a Giuliani candidacy would effectively give us a two-party system in which both parties are pro-choice. I also agree with him that evangelicals and others who share our policy goals should unite around a candidate now so that Giuliani will not get the nomination. I for one would much rather vote for a non-Christian who would continue the pro-life cause than for a nominal Christian who won’t. I have never thought that presidential candidates must be evangelical Christians before I would lend them my support. That’s an unrealistic expectation, and Grudem argues that it’s an unbiblical one as well.

‘Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidateâ€”someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible. . .

‘Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. God used Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to raise Joseph to a position of authority over the whole country, so he could save his people from famine (Genesis 41:37-57). God used Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, to protect and raise up Daniel and his Jewish friends to positions of high authority over Babylon (Daniel 2:46-49). God used Cyrus, King of Persia, to restore the Jewish exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 45:16; Ezra 1:1-4), and used Darius, King of Persia, to protect the Jewish people as they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:1-12). God used Ahashuerus, King of Persia, to raise up Esther as Queen and to give Mordecai high authority and honor in his kingdom (Esther 6:10-11; 8:1-2, 7-15). In the New Testament age, God used the peace enforced by the secular Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, to enable the early Christians to travel freely and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.

‘Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”‘

I will be making up my mind before too long. Despite my earlier protests against Romney, I’m not closed off to his candidacy. More later.

I was never completely closed off to Romney to begin with. I was skeptical of his pro-life conversion, which seemed to occur just in time to run for president. I have to admit, however, that my skepticism is based on inferences about his motives. The truth is that I don’t know the man, and I can’t read his heart. If others that I trust who do know the man can confirm that his pro-life conversion is one of conviction and not one of convenience, that will be a big deal to me.

This is horribly disappointing from Grudem. Not because of Romney’s Mormonism, but because of his unclear abortion position. Suddenly he’s pro-life?! I think Tancredo’s comment is absolutely right, â€œExcuse me for being cynical but usually conversions occur on the road to Damascus â€“ not on the road to Des Moines.â€ There is no way to really know what he believes.

Grudem says, “As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative.” And Romney is? He’s flip flopped more than John Kerry!

Grudem also said, “Among the â€œsecond-tierâ€ candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isnâ€™t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly ‘take off.’ There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.” Maybe they haven’t generated much support because Christians are too busy getting behind the first tier candidates instead of supporting the true conservative! How would their campaigns change if conservative Evangelicals did?

Anyone looking at Huckabee? He is gaining a lot of momentum. If you are looking for a true conservative, I think he is someone you might want to check out. I don’t know a lot about him, but his Iowa polls are looking up. After Romney, he is in the middle of the pack and is growing stronger. Yesterday on MSNBC there was a conversation with a couple of their analysts on his potential to win this.

I’m sure Grudem doesn’t know him personally. That’s why I’m withholding judgment and waiting for more confirmation that his pro-life conversion is for real. Grudem is convinced. I need some more convincing.

although this is par for the course, I am shocked that Denny has not addressed my concern here.

Just because I’m brash doesn’t mean I’m wrong Denny. Avoiding conversation because you’re pouty that there are liberal Christians commenting on your blog doesn’t negate the points that I’m making.

And what to make about the neo-con slamming of S-CHIP? I thought neo-conservatism was supposed to be COMPASSIONATE conservatism. Guess not, eh, Denny? Someone who claims to be Christian not expressing outrage that the Republican leaders are out there taking pot shots at 12 year olds isn’t remembering much of the Bible, are they?

I take it you haven’t had your nose in a newspaper in the past month then?

S-CHIP: federally mandated health insurance for poor kids.

Neo-Con slamming thereof…

1) vetoing it, and then using the term “socialized medicine” to scare off the heartless conservatives who care more about cash than human lives, unless its Terri Schiavo.

2) When Graeme Frost (find the story anywhere but Michele Malkin’s website) spoke out about how he was helped by S-CHIP, Mitch McConnell and a few other GOP’ers decided to start a smear campaign AGAINST A 12 YEAR OLD.

The GOP is the party of values? What values? certainly not compassion or decency.

When the Democrats were trying to get enough votes to override Bush’s veto of S-CHIP(I think it stands for State Children’s Health Insurance Program…or something like that) and trying to get Bush to change his mind, they brought in a 12 year old to offer testimony why he needed it and how much it has helped him. After that his family was attacked on the internet and threatened.

I agree with Yvette regarding Huckabee. Perhaps the reason he is still second tier is because we have Grudem backing Romney and Bob Jones III backing Giulianni. We’re voting based on popularity instead of using these four months to promote someone with values. I know who I am voting for in the primaries, even if it means my candidate doesn’t make it to the election. It seems like we are all scrambling to find the lesser of two evils, instead of a good candidate.

It’s no surprise that a former Christian country like the USA can not turn out a good conservative candidate for president. It is truly evident that God’s wrathful hand is upon our country. This is bad and good. Bad because we are living during this time, good because it means the time of Christ’s return in certainly around the corner. Maranatha!

Your argument is not ruined. Grudem and Jones backing Romney still alludes to the compromise to which you were referring. The point is the same…Evangelicals aren’t supporting the true conservative and so he remains second tier. You are absolutely right when you say they are looking for the lesser of two evils.

I’m a bit confused. On one hand you condemn Bush’s veto of S-CHIP, and on the other hand you tell us about the true conservative candidate Ron Paul. I think the veto of S-CHIP is actually quite a conservative stance, and I’m speculating Ron Paul would have vetoed the bill as well.

That being said, I have no problems with the bill myself. If you want to add a $5/pack tax to cigarettes be my guest. But if people stop buying cigarettes because the price is too high, then the S-CHIP funding goes out the window, and the bill doesn’t work. Bush told Democrats the entire time that if they exceeded his proposed budget by 20% they would have to work out the money together, but the Dems pushed it through anyway and it got vetoed.

My vote is for Huckabee. Until he is no longer in the race, I’m going to continue to support him.

this is why I like Ron Paul (and yes, he DID vote to uphold the veto): He is an actual, true, real, dyed in the wool, just like Barry Goldwater conservative. Both socially and fiscally. He’s not messing around, and he’s the real deal.

Also, with someone like Ron Paul in office, there’d be no way that you’d see earmarks and entitlements all over the place. Frankly, very little would get done, and we’d probably see another economic boom. And he’s pro-life.

In other words, I have little problem with a conservative in office, as long as it’s a REAL conservative. Huckabee’s not, and I love the fact that all y’all are getting the wool pulled over your eyes.

Now, to how this ties into the current batch of Republicans:

If you want to be a conservative, then fine, but then don’t start a pre-emptive war that costs us millions of dollars per day. If you want to be fiscally sound, that’s great, but then wipe out the helium reclamation program, and repeal the marriage education program, which combined would save us about $9 BILLION per year. And that’s just two idiotic programs. Want me to go on?

But don’t spend at a higher rate than Clinton ever did and call yourself conservative. Don’t veto a bill that would ensure that poor and lower middle class kids would have health insurance, and then call yourself compassionate. These guys want to call themselves both, and yet are neither.

The hypocrisy factor alone should be enough to rid yourselves of these losers, but alas, you don’t.

You’re right Yvett when you say “You are absolutely right when you say they are looking for the lesser of two evils.”
Unfortunately it’s the only game in town.
While Romney may not be the “best ie. most desireable” candidate in town he is the best of those available to run against Clinton and have a snowballs chance in Hell of beating her.
Personally my only goal is to beat Senator Clinton, one Clinton President is one too many and we’ve already had one.

I’ve not read all the comments here, but on the topic itself I am not convinced about Romney. I really like Grudem, but this is the second political piece from him that I have found unconvincing.
It is too early to give up on candidates just because the national media has yet to pay attention to them. Ron Paul is a true conservative (an endangered species today) and Huckabee seems to be in that vein as well.

“So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win [with Giuliani], we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.”

so is the we in this case Christians or Republicans?

If evangelicals have gotten to the point where it’s simply taken for granted that Christian = Republican, then I have no idea what else to say, outside of calling Grudem and anyone else that would take the same stand nothing short of pathetic.

Correct me if I’m wrong, you are calling Huckabee a hypocritic loser? Can you provide some evidence of this?

On the pre-emptive war, many people feel that the war was not and is not a mistake. Because you feel that way doesn’t make us wrong. I think its a mess now, and perhaps it was mismanaged, but I still don’t feel that an American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is a mistake. I’m sorry, actually I’m not sorry, that’s what I believe. Feel free to belittle me as oft as you want for holding on to my beliefs. And I don’t think the expenditures on defense in regards to this war are anti-conservative. I still believe they were and especially while we are still there entirely necessary.

You say that the S-CHIP bill would have ENSURED children would have insurance, but you didn’t address the question I posed about increasing taxes on a good that people can choose not to buy. I admit that taxing something that is addictive helps to ENSURE that people will keep buying it, but it doesn’t ENSURE it completely. Supply and demand still have a factor in the equation.

In regards to Ron Paul, sometimes having all the conservative stances on everything isn’t all that it takes to get my vote. Sometimes it’s about an attitude that is portrayed. Sometimes it’s about putting on a face that isn’t abrasive to me. For whatever reason–a few of his responses in one of the debates turned me off, I feel that God doesn’t want me to vote for Ron Paul. The more I look at the choices, the more convinced I am that Huckabee is my guy. I hope he can do enough to become everyone elses guy in time for the elections.

I just read Denny’s original post, and though I haven’t had time to do more than a quick skim through the comments, I wanted make a brief one myself.

To say that Giuliani or ANY candidate being nominated (or elected) would be a ‘disaster for the pro-life movement’ seems a gross overstatement. Yet, this view would seem to explain a lot of the nonsensical and confusing things I have read here and other places on this subject, including this current post and the opinions of Grudem.

If a candidacy by anyone other than a completely consistent pro-life conservative (by who’s definition I am not sure) spells disaster for the pro-life movement, then I guess this stuff all makes sense.

But… what if it doesn’t?

Then, maybe we could take a little more holistic view of particular candidates and politics in general.

I am pro-life… but abortion in America is certainly not the only ‘life issue’ for us to consider politically, particularly on a more global scale. And, even if it was, I would strongly question the assumption that who gets elected president is going to be the difference maker on this issue, judicial nominations notwithstanding.

I was watching MSNBC this week, and they were talking about the fact Huckabee can still win this. They were speaking with two analysts, Pat Buchanan and someone else. Huckabee is polling strong in Iowa, and on Tucker Carlson, Tucker made a great point that even liberals like him. Tucker even said he liked him. A lot of it depends on Evangelicals actually getting behind him.

I do not disagree with everything he wrote here, and I did vote for Bush. However, there seems to be too little nuance in the issues as he addresses them. As a conservative, I would have more critiques of the administration than Grudem does here.

Unfortunately, Wayne is being carnal. He is thinking like the Jews, when they wanted Samuel for king. What, we can’t choose Godly men like Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee and pray? Is God’s arm too short? Doesn’t Wayne believe that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much?

I understand where Grudem is coming from, but I have to ask myself if we are forgetting what a great God we serve…

To assert about the second tier candidates that “With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isnâ€™t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly â€œtake off,” isn’t the viewpoint that I’m ready to adopt.

Why aren’t we, the evangelicals, on our faces before God begging Him to raise up a man who knows and loves Him, to follow His lead as the President of our country?

Have we forgotten that He chose to work through a shepherd boy to defeat the enemies of Israel?

A man who wasn’t eloquent to lead His people to the promised land?

A teenage king to clean out the idols and high places from Israel and Judah?

We serve the same God today that they served then. He hasn’t changed. He can raise up anyone He pleases…He raises up kings and tears down kings, according to His Word about Himself.

Why don’t we stay on our faces before Him, asking Him to raise up a “king” who will stand firmly by His people, Israel; who will not allow the slaying of the unborn; and who will commit to follow God as He leads this country back to Him as Josiah did in the days of his kingship?

Idealistic? Maybe.

However, “Some trust in horses and some trust in chariots, but we will trust in the name of the Lord our God”….I sure prefer that to trusting in all the speculations of man.

I’m a christian who is finding myself more interested in politics/government than I used to be. This post and the following comments put a question in my mind. Why do I get that sense that so many christians (not just the ones commenting here) feel that abortion is one of the most important political issues? In your opinion is the pro-life movement so important that christians would be doing a terrible thing to vote for a pro-choice candidate? Does putting a pro-life president in office really do great things for the pro-life movement?

I ask these questions not because I doubt that you are correct, as I am sure that most of you have studied the issues much more than I have, but simply because I am curious about the reasons for your passion on the issue. I would consider myself pro-life, but I don’t see it as one of the issues that I draw a line in the sand on. If you will, please explain.

Here’s the bottom line for me…If I am to be a follower of Christ, then I believe that the choices that I make must mirror those that He would make.

Clearly, I don’t always succeed in this..I act like a jerk to my husband; I use a harsh tone with my son; I dream about telling off the lady who always dresses inappropriately at our small group….but, regardless, each time I have a choice in whether to be used as a weapon of unrighteousness, or of righteousness.

I believe that my vote is a tool for righteousness, and that God would have me use it to elect a man who proclaims to know and love Him, and whose life demonstrates that.

I am reminded often, as we near this election year, of what I learned in my study of Hosea…of the horrors that occurred when there was “no knowledge of God in the land”…it’s amazing to study that book!

For, without a knowledge of God in the land we read that everyone, and everything suffered…even the LAND itself!

I do not believe that someone who truly knows and loves the Lord, and is a student of His Word, could use His Word as the justification for abortion, much less for abandoning Israel.

So, that’s the plumbline for me…is the candidate that I am considering one who knows the Lord, and His Word, and is willing to align their choices by His Word instead of by the favor of men?

Last spring I was asked to teach a ladies retreat. The Lord kept laying a verse out of Ezekiel on my heart which addressed speaking only what God told Ezekiel to speak, and not shrinking back for fear of man.

God made it quite clear to Ezekiel that if he chose not to go and tell the Israelites what God instructed him to, that there would be personal consequences for him.

It was a powerful tool of conviction and reverence for me, as God showed me how crucial it is that when we are called of Him, for His purposes, we must be obedient to Him.

I hope to elect a leader who WILL BE called of God, and my belief is that to vote for one who is directly in opposition to God’s Word about the sanctity of life, would be to choose to sin.

That being said, the issue of abortion is not my key issue.

My key issue is…does this man know the LORD? Has he demonstrated that he is obedient to the LORD? Does he show any reverence for God’s Word?

I am reminded of the 12 spies that went to spy out the land for Israel.

The Bible calls those 12 who were chosen, the leaders of their tribes.

However, once they went and spied out the land, 10 of those leaders came back and gave a “bad report”. They KNEW that God had promised the land to them, but they were operating out of the fear of man.

THEY FORGOT who holds all in His hands!

Only 2..Joshua and Caleb, were clear on the fact that if God told them to “go up”, they were going to “go up”.

I want my vote to go to a man who will “go up” against all of the enemies of my LORD…and walk in the path that God makes for him, and for this country.

Those include abortion, and the support of Israel, among others.

I want to elect a man who will be a servant of the LORD, above all else.

On the matter of the importance of the abortion issue seemingly above all others…

Like you, I question this premise. Like you, I am against abortion. I think that one day, some day, history will look back on this period of time, much like we look back at slavery in America, as a horrendous black mark on our nation. Yet, I have a hard time embracing the idea that who we elect as president is going to be the key to making this change in our nation, especially if it comes at the cost of electing someone who is wrong on any number of other issues, including their personal faith.

On the issue of whether it would be wrong for a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate, I heard something the other day on Catholic radio that was helpful and made a lot of sense. These guys were as pro-life as you can get, and they fielded this exact question. I love the response which was presented as more or less, “the Catholic Church’s position.”

Basically, they hold the view that as a follower or Christ, you must be pro-life. It is the only consistent Biblical stance on this issue. Nevertheless, there are many other issues involved in an election of this sort. Therefore, the Church’s stance is this. It is not wrong, or a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as that is not the reason you are voting for them. IF you are voting for them BECAUSE they are pro-choice/pro-abortion then that is a different matter, actively and willfully supporting evil.

I thought that was a great answer. I love the fact that Catholics, even in very pragmatic contexts such as political elections, seem to do a better job at remembering there are personal, moral, spiritual issues underlying these things.

With all due respect to Grudem’s work in Systematic Theology, I think his mentioning of all the pagan kings in the Bible are weak to support his argument for Romney. Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, Cyrus, Darius, Ahashuerus are all kings of an already pagan country.

I bet Grudem won’t quote these kings in his article to support Romney if there is another more popular candidate. My 2 cents.

I have mulled over this blog and the subsequent comments a little bit today and I can’t help but admire everyone’s desire to glorify God with every action and decision that you make. That is not lost on me one bit, and it challenges me greatly!!!

Like J, I’m politically and spiritually immature. But, historically conservatives have rubbed me the wrong way. That’s not to say I’m a liberal, but I struggle with the paradigm of the Christian Right.

One of my concerns about conservative politics is the time and energy it spends on the abortion and gay marriage issue. These issues are no doubt extremely important and backed up by scripture. But, what is also backed up with scripture is how we should feel about the poor, sick, environment, peace, and many other issues that Jesus spoke heavily too. Often, i see the “other side” more vocal about these issues while the conservatives are chasing their tails on other issues.

In voting for the “other side” one often runs into the problem of finding a prayerful, Jesus-follower as a leader. This would be a considerable obstacle in making America a “Christian Nation”. However, I don’t remember the instruction to vote for a prayerful leader as much as I remember the instruction to pray fot those in leadership positions. If the leader is campaigning for peace, health, better environment and taking care of those in need, can we do much more than pray for her/him?

That comment might come as criticism to some, but I pray that you know how blessed I am to know that there are those out there concerned with glorifying God with every action, thought and vote as I read in this blog and its comments…

I really like Huckabee. He’s right on the money on all the issues that I care about most. My concern about him is electability, and I’m not talking about his financing.

In order for Republicans to win the presidency, they must put together a coalition of social, fiscal, and national security conservatives. These three groups have to turn out on election day or the pro-life party loses.

I’m concerned that Huckabee will not appeal to the fiscal conservatives because he has some views that would result in bigger government. If that happens, the coalition breaks and Hillary Clinton becomes the next President.

If I could be more assured that Huckabee would appeal to fiscal conservatives, I’d be more optimistic about his candidacy.

Seriously? You aren’t helping your cause any. I think you’ve gotten more abrasive than ever, and it does not make me think Christian thoughts towards you. That being said, I’m glad Denny ignores you; he’s much better than me in that regard.

But since you’re bringing up things Denny hasn’t responded to, I believe I asked for you to defend your stance of referring to Huckabee as a hypocritic loser?

I’m still waiting. I also think I’m waiting for abortion statistics you were going to post 4 monhts ago, but that’s a different topic.

I hope your online tone is simply that. Otherwise, you’re bound to end up lonely and bitter. Read what you write (don’t worry, log in the eye about to get addressed…).

“…and it does not make me think Christian thoughts towards you.”

Dude, that’s totally your problem, and you need to be in prayer about such things. Hardcore prayer. Because if you don’t first and foremost see a brother in Christ, then you gots issues, my man.

“Iâ€™m glad Denny ignores you; heâ€™s much better than me in that regard.”

You’re glad that people shy away from debate? You’re glad that people are afraid to address issues that run counter to their own very narrow ideas? You’re glad that Christians won’t even talk to each other because you don’t like their viewpoints or the way that things are said? Yikes, my man. Yikes.

As for calling Huckabee a hypocritical loser, here’s my defense: you can’t run as the conservative candidate if you plan on spending as much as the most fiscally foolish president that we’ve ever had. You can’t call yourself a Christian leader and not make a stand against all of the un-Christian stances that this administration has taken. Huckabee might be better than most (except Ron Paul, who is Christian and classically conservative), but being anything other than what you claim to be is pointless. Clinton might have lied about smoking weed and Monica Lewinsky, but you always knew where he stood. That is something that this current crop of Republicans (except Ron Paul, who actually has some ethics) is sorely lacking. Prove me wrong. I’d love to be wrong on this one. But, as I’ve said before, everyone that I’ve talked to from Arkansas has said the same thing: Huckabee wasn’t much of a governor. If you can’t govern Arkansas well, what leads you to believe that you’ve got the stuff to run the United States of America.

Now, as for the log in my own eye. Granted, I might be harsh. More than likely too harsh. And if that’s the case, then I apologize. Sincerely. But, by the same token, I don’t appreciate my God being turned into a single issue voter, a God that doesn’t punish those who blatantly lie, cheat and steal from the poor, or a God that only values unborn life. And I WILL comment on that whenever and wherever possible. Too bad for Denny that he wrote a column that I didn’t agree with in the Southern Baptist Press News that I didn’t agree with and that he gave the address for this blog. If it makes you feel much better, I do just as much of this with the left-wingers who claim that there’s no need to evangelize or that The Bible is an errant document.

I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. But let’s face it, if you claim to be conservative, and then throw your support behind candidates who are not classically conservative, then yes, you ARE a hypocrite. If you claim to be pro-life because God makes the little babies, but then refuse to be pro-environment, then you ARE a hypocrite. After all, if you’re willing to destroy one of God’s creations, why not destroy them all? If you claim to live by the teaching that “what you do to the least of these, you do to me” and then stand idly by as the party that you hold dear mocks a 12 year old, then you ARE a hypocrite.

Do you want me to sugar coat it? If so, Jason, then how so? Give me explicit instructions on how best to treat you and I will do so to the T.

Ron Paul IS a Christian. However, he’s also very old school conservative when it comes to these things. He’s not the type to mention it.

As for Israel, knowing that he’s pretty much an isolationist, I don’t know if he’d attempt to prop up Israel in the way that Bush has done, but also remember that spending and appropriations bills are the responsibility of the House, not of the President.

the 12 year old who was mocked by Mitch McConnell and Michele Malkin (both stand up citizens of the right) is Graeme Frost.